15 Billion for UK nuclear warhead programme

[Howhighcanitbe]

Just seen this and feel it’s absolutely obscene. What a huge waste of money. Starmer apparently wants to build more nuclear submarines too. I understand that defence spending is necessary but this seems far too much in the wrong areas? Surely it would be better to focus on other weaknesses as I assume cyber attacks would be more damaging and more likely than conventional?

It is unfortunately 100% necessary

It's not there to be used. It's a deterrent, to show that we can respond to nuclear attack. The mad doctrine has been effective in stopping all out war between superpowers

I am not exactly a Starmer supporter, but holy fucking shit he can't win can he. If he did the opposite there'd be fifteen billion threads about how cowardly he is or some other shit.

I’m sure there are many many more popular things he’d much rather be spending £15billion on. I doubt he’s doing it for shits and giggles.

I mean first of all you have to compare like with like.
15 billion may just be the warhead design and maintenance. But like the cost of the subs that will be spread over a lifetime of about 30 years.

Of course it's not like for like. One of those things is investing in people, the other is investing in killing people. Not remotely the same thing.

We do not need to spend £15 billion on nuclear weapons at all, whether it is paid up front or on the never-never.

@zendeveloper I was so afraid that Labour would never have the guts to do this. I lean more conservative on the UK political landscape, and defence was one of my biggest worries when Labour won.

You were worried that Labour wouldn't spend £billions on arms when the Tories (who you support), in power for over a decade, didn't?

I'd assume, like a pp, that the government do know what they're doing here. Unless you're better placed to advise them, in which case, get on to them and tell them you're available for a consultation!

@PhilippaGeorgiou Yes, exactly that. I wouldn't say I support tories much either, I don't really vote in the UK, just pay my taxes here. But on defence decision making in emergency I trust Boris Johnson and his team much more - and happy to be proven wrong about Starmer.

Spot on and the goverment wants to put defence spending up to 3% of GDP – that’s about £30 billion more a year. Every year. Not just once.

And the thing is – that money’s got to come from somewhere. So people cheering it on should be honest – what gets cut to pay for it? Or whose taxes are going up?

Cos let’s be real, it’s a zero sum game. Every pound spent on more warships or missiles is a pound not being spent on things most of us actually care about – like the NHS, elderly care, fixing crumbling schools, housing, public transport, childcare, or clean energy.

Plus a lot of this defence spending ends up wasted anyway. The Ajax tank project’s cost £5 billion and the things still don’t work properly. We’ve got an aircraft carrier without functioning planes. And loads of these projects are just delay after delay, and no one ever seems held to account.

And unlike investing in health or education or green jobs, military spending gives a terrible return. Studies show stuff like healthcare or infrastructure creates way more jobs and long term growth. Weapons? Not so much.

Also – worth remembering – Brexit and Covid left us with something like £600 billion in debt. And we haven’t paid that back. The economy’s wobbly, interest rates are high, and it won’t take much (one Liz Truss style meltdown??) to send things over the edge again.

Just feels like we’re in a period of decline and instead of fixing the basics – schools, housing, care, climate – we’re doubling down on war toys. Doesn’t seem like a smart move.

If the UK wants to feel safe and strong maybe we should start by getting the NHS working again and giving kids somewhere decent to learn and live.

Oddly this is the last site that seems to think the government know what they are doing, and since I have been fighting nuclear proliferation for over 40 years, I think I am pulling my weight. Assuming a government know what they are doing - any government of any complexion - is a recipe for "shut up and let your betters do as they want". In a democracy we are entitled to disgree with them, to not assume they know what they are doing, and to fight their decisions when we think they are wrong.

And just because they might think they know what they are doing doesn't mean they have told you the truth about what they are doing either - as I said earlier on, there are distinct, albeit temporary, economic advantages to moving onto a war footing economy. War is profitable, building arms is profitable. Just one small example - where exactly do you think all that steel that taxpayers are pouring £millions in to, that nobody else could make profitable, and which cannot be sold to our biggest previous market because of tariffs will now be used. Funny that the government decided it needed to build things that use exactly that kind of steel, isn't it? So we are spending £billions on things built out of steel from an unsustainable industry that we are already pouring £millions into to keep afloat because it is too expensive to produce / there is no market for it anywhere.

It couldn’t be further away from a North Korean missile display. That’s utter nonsense. Here we are, in 2025, being openly threatened by a sociopathic individual with the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world. Today’s announcement by Starmer is way overdue and if anything, doesn’t go far enough in terms of defense spending.

That is a very simplistic review that completely ignores the concept of nuclear deterrence.

Then it will have served its purpose

I actually think MAD is an outdated concept. Much more likely now that someone would use a tactical nuclear weapon first which would be condemned and rather than an all out response we would respond similarly. Followed by intense cyber attacks and similar.

Surely, if the enemy believes you possess nuclear weapons, that alone acts as a deterrent—they don’t have to actually work perfectly, because if we ever did use them, it would be game over. Nuclear submarines rely heavily on stealth to remain undetected, but with the unprecedented increase in satellite surveillance by potential adversaries, combined with vast advances in AI and computing power, what are the odds that submarines may become redundant long before they even enter service?

They’d just use a small weapon knowing full well we would back down and not destroy the whole planet over a small loss.

And that is a simplistic view that totally ignores the fact that the non-nuclear powers (whether you like them or not) are developing nuclear capability precisely because others have nuclear weapons but don't want them to have them. MAD was discredited decades ago. The theory is based on the fact that it only works as a "deterrent" because everybody kills everybody else, so nobody kills anyone. That worked so well with wars so far, hasn't it? Bigger toys do not make people safer.

It’s MAD that’s kept, and continues to keep us safe. It’s not outdated at all.

As I said above, MAD continues to be totally relevant and has played a big part in why the Ukraine conflict hasn’t escalated.

It’s luck that keeps us safe and at some point there will be a leader from a nuclear armed country who will go for the ultimate show, to use a tactical nuclear weapon. I honestly believe that MAD only works if everyone is of the same mindset and as we know, some aren’t.

You seriously believe that “luck” is why we have remained safe? Nothing to do with intelligence, diplomacy, strategy, trade relationships and a dozen other things?

I’m not sure diplomacy is relevant when we seem to have Starmer going on about being war ready and detailing how we are going to increase our nuclear arsenal. That is just inflammatory.

its nowhere near enough - but its a start, have you seen the state of the world at the moment OP?

Yes it’s a mess , wars and destruction. That’s why I don’t think this level of spending on weapons and all the talk about being war ready is appropriate.

Well, yes, obligations to NATO amounting to 3% GDP and deference to Trump and elbowing our the way to the front of the tariff queue has a cost.

Have you actually taken any notice of what’s happened over the last 3 years or so?